andrewducker | Empathic Failure

It's not a lack of empathy. It comes more from not believing that whatever you are doing will cause harm. When being told it does cause harm you can accept this and challenge your self image (which I would hold in most cases is "someone who doesn't do harm") and apologise. Or you can paint spoiler phobes as the bad guys.

The latter option is easier I'd wager. (I also reckon most people do this for either one thing or another)

I dunno, I think that the behaviour you're describing there pretty much shows a lack of empathy. Not believing that something will cause harm is failing to see how it will. Which denotes a lack of empathy.

Andy, I haven't read the original post yet (although I will) but I agree. It simply astounds me the way in which people seem to enjoy willfully deflating people when - and this is the key thing - it causes them basically little to no inconvenience.

I mean, it's a matter of degrees, and about managing expectations against what is rational to expect against what is convenient or reasonable or not that big a deal.

For example:

Person A doesn't want you to spoil the end of Titanic for them. Person A is a moron. The disaster was nearly a hundred years ago. If they don't know what happens, they deserve to be spoiled.

Person B doesn't want to know the end of Season 3 BSG. This was over a year ago now, and honestly, if you talked openly about it you could be forgiven for saying "really, if you care that much you should know by now." However we all know that we didn't want to be spoiled ourselves in our day, and it would be easy and not a huge fuss to chuck it behind a cut or, in the case of 'real life' go "Oh, wait, have you seen it? Oh, cover your ears..." before continuing. And maybe keeping the information general rather than specific would be nice too, just in case - after all, unless it's an in-depth discussion, which a spoiler-phobe can probably be trusted to avoid, then you probably don't need to make mention of, say, the status of specific characters.

Then Person C doesn't want to know the end of, say, Season 2 Ashes to Ashes, which finished a matter of weeks ago if that. If you mess this up for someone who hasn't quite managed to see it yet you are just being a prick. No, they don't have to read your journal. Yes, they could avoid the whole internet for fear that everyone is as much of an arsehole as you. Or you could stop being such a smug cock.

/my 2p

Actually if it's done on purpose someone by definition must have a sense of empathty.

All I contend is that maintaining someones opinion is wrong does not indicate a lack of empathy. Sheer bloody mindedness perhaps but will that person care less if a small child is kicked? Doubtful.

Pah can't edit posts.

The stuff in my original comment is a result of being empathetic and needing to find a reason to acknowledge why you weren't.

If someone is arsey about having inadvertently spoiled something for you it doesn't indicate a lack of empathy. A lack of empathy would be indicated by a more apathetic response. A shrugging off as oppossed to a (to varying degrees of arseyness) "don't take things so seriously" kinda thing.

Is there a word for "an inability to believe that someone can feel something different to oneself"?

Lack of a theory of mind.

Seems a bit extreme. Lots of people do seem to have a basic lack of understanding that people's tastes vary. Even something as basic as liking different kinds of music can have people scratching their heads that it's _possible_ for me to like metal...

Being unable to believe that someone can feel something different to oneself is a bit of an extreme position.

The irony is that your post seems to fufil the same function as someone how is "insistent on telling you how to enjoy movies" only from the other side. It's justifying your position that this is not ok and taking this as a given. I think most people would agree that given the way is written, as a disregard for individual autonomy and emotion, most people would agree with you. However I reckon most people would also agree with a post detailing how much someone overreacted just because you'd let slip the ending to something or another - "I mean it's only a movie yeah? In the grand scheme of things it's not actually important... Jesus kids are starving in Africa what a self important arse".

It's a post describing how I feel about movies and their being spoiled for me. It's not a dictat - and it doesn't tell anyone how to act or feel themselves.

And of course there are more important things. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have some importance. If someone punches you in the face and then says "It could be worse, there's genocide in Darfur" then that's not really a good excuse...

The irony is that your post seems to fufil the same function as someone how is "insistent on telling you how to enjoy movies" only from the other side.

Well put. That was my initial thought on reading this post.

Interesting. I didn't feel I was telling anyone how to act - I felt I was telling people how I felt. I then felt you were telling me that those feelings were not important.

I take it that wasn't how you felt?

Calling it a failure of empathy is a bit extreme in my view also, it's a failure of politeness and a transgression of group norms. But not a failure of empathy. Someone who reacts badly to someone else reacting badly to something they have done is just a human being it doesn't mean they are less empathetic or that they won't wince as much as the next person if someone starts punching kittens.

It can be a minor failure of empathy. Things don't have fail totally :->

unempathic.

I am now completely paranoid that I've said something to spoil something for someone at some point or points.

I hate the idea that someone might think a person would do it on purpose - it's dumb, and yeah causes them basically little to no inconvenience to shut up to please someone else. Particularly bothered as marrog just mentioned Ashes to Ashes, which we were talking about at the weekend...

I'm also paranoid that disagreeing with people or discussing something is gonna offend someone. I totally respect that someone can have an opinion about something that I disagree with. Generally I'm not bothered, but might want to discuss it heatedly, with no offence intended in the long term. I like dicsusing stuff and don't get to do it often in a meaningful way.

I used an example of a friend never having seen Empire, so not getting a cultural reference in another movie - I was "shocked" she'd neer seen it, but only becuase I assumed everyone had been made to watch it when they were wee, like me. I wasn't all that bothered she'd not seen it or not, or whether she'd have liked it if she had.

I wish I could be bothered about differences of opinion and not take it personally. I think/hope I'm getting better at it.

Wouldn't worry about it too much. Everyone says things they wish they hadn't some time - and our friends generally forgive us. Mine have certainly forgiven me for enough stupid things in my time :->

Nobody's perfect, so long as you're trying you're doing well!

I used Ashes to Ashes because we discussed it at the weekend, yeah, although (a) you didn't spoil it; (b) Erin probably wouldn't have minded and (c) I saw the first series already, so I wouldn't worry too much!

Is it any good? I watched the first episode and hated the main character so much I didn't carry on.

I really liked it. It's very different from Life On Mars though. If you hate the main character, you probably won't like it, mind you...

I mean, it's a matter of degrees, and about managing expectations against what is rational to expect against what is convenient or reasonable or not that big a deal.

I couldn't agree more. My (original) context for the discussion was that a friend considered that "everyone dies in the end" was an unacceptable spoiler for a Shakespearean tragedy (it's also not strictly true, given that Fortinbras and Horatio both survive). I believe that Hamlet is cultural common knowledge, and thus fair game for discussion without spoiler warnings; even if people haven't seen or read the play, they will most likely be able to quote one or more lines from it, and many will have a rough idea of the basics of the plot.

I agree with your judgements on the three cases you list. The person who spoiled C is being a twit. In the case of B, I might err on the side of caution, but if I were spoiled I'd consider it at least partly my fault for not getting around to watching it. Person A has unreasonable expectations, quite clearly, and seems to believe that the world revolves around them.

In the previous discussion, I suggested a couple of rules of thumb for judging whether spoiler warnings were necessary based on whether there were places in popular culture where knowledge of a particular was clearly assumed. For example, if Family Guy runs a parody of the original Star Wars trilogy, it's clear that they expect the majority of their audience to get the references. Similarly, a general knowledge pub quiz question that asked the name of the sledge in Citizen Kane would suggest that this particular fact about CK was trivia that people might be expected to know (I can't remember who suggested pub quizzes as a yardstick, but they were spot-on).

Andy and I appear to differ on this. Whether this makes me a child-kicking unempathic sod, or merely someone who has decided that he is tired of pandering to the unreasonable demands of delicate flowers is for others to judge.

Andy and I appear to differ on this. Whether this makes me a child-kicking unempathic sod, or merely someone who has decided that he is tired of pandering to the unreasonable demands of delicate flowers is for others to judge.

That depends. I'm not clear on whether you don't believe the act hurts me (unempathic) or do believe me, but have decided that the effort of posting spoiler warnings is greater than you are willing to put in (tired).

Tired mostly. I can believe that the act hurts you. However, your views on what constitutes a spoiler are such that I think you're being overly sensitive.

Don't take this as an attempt to tell you what you should be thinking, but rather as the suggestion that your expectations of the degree to which others will change their behaviour to suit you is unreasonable.

Consider an analogy with veganism. It's quite reasonable for a vegan dinner party guest to ask that I provide them with food that isn't derived from animals. It's unreasonable that they should demand that I *and my other guests* should submit to their self-imposed dietary constraints so as not to offend their sensibilities. I would argue that a vegan guest in the latter situation was indeed displaying a lack of empathy.

I don't actually expect people to change their behaviour significantly. I'm expecting them to understand me :->

I don't find my views overly sensitive. Dead simple so they are - I don't want to be told the endings of things I haven't seen. Now, I know people who don't want to be told _casting_ for upcoming things. To me _that_ is too sensitive. But meh, people feel how they feel, who am I to tell them that their feelings are wrong?

If you want to post spoilers in your own journal then that's totally your choice. I then have to decide whether having you on my friends list is worth it.

To give an example of this, dougs removed me for 24 hounts until the animated lion/bear cub was off his front page. I can choose to keep posting animated gifs, and eventually he'll get fed up and take me off his friends list entirely (presumably), or I can choose to avoid doing so (and not post some things that amuse me).

I'll probably continue to post the occasional one - but I'll bear in mind that it makes Doug unhappy when I do it, and it'll probably mean I post them less - or post larger ones under a cut.

I don't find my views overly sensitive. Dead simple so they are - I don't want to be told the endings of things I haven't seen.

That's a pretty absolute position, and one that you're displaying little flexibility over.

Several of us have argued that context plays a role, and that there's a spectrum of points after which common knowledge could be assumed and therefore after which uncut spoilers become fair game (one of my colleagues holds that spoilers are fair game after first terrestrial broadcast - I personally feel that this is a little harsh, but I accept his reasoning). Your view seems to be more along the lines of "once a spoiler, always a spoiler", and you don't seem to have engaged with any more liberal interpretations.

That's a pretty absolute position, and one that you're displaying little flexibility over.

I don't understand how I could display flexibility over explaining what upsets me. I'm not prescribing action for anyone - I'm describing the situation which makes me unhappy. If I changed the description then it would no longer be accurate.

Context does not play a role in how much it makes me unhappy. You telling me about context is not going to change that - why would you expect it to?

I'm telling you what spoils movies for me. How can I be flexible in that? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If movies being spoilt causes you unhappiness rather then momentary frustration I'd be inclined to think you were taking things a little bit too seriously.

You're semantically quibbling here. Frustration is a kind of unhappiness. As is misery, depression, "being bothered", irked, and a whole bunch of other things.

To quibble on...

Frustration and being irked are more linked to anger I would say. "Being bothered" could be either anger or saddness.

Then again if you don't take unhappiness to be a synonym for saddness and just to mean "someone who isn't happy" then it covers... well nigh on every other emotion there is... ;)

Well, when someone spoils me I am both saddened and angered, both in a reasonably small amount, but definitely there.

I was spoiled on the end of Book 6 of Harry Potter when I was 4 pages off that point, by a bunch of chavs who saw me reading it. I could happily have beaten the nearest one to death with the hardback.

That situation I can relate to. If I were in a similar situation I would probably do the same. Luckily I don't read the kinds of books schemies (god good I've gone all Reekie!) know how they end. So the worst I get is "Males bodies? Are you a poof or something?" (I was reading it as research for my dissertation despite the slightly salacious title and cover it's a very dry read in all honesty)

I think that for me, although I personally think Andy's a bit over-sensitive (and also doesn't have enough Culture, *grins*), I would still cut (most) stuff on my LJ because I'm happy to go to a small amount of trouble for the convenience of my friends.

But, although I personally would, I wouldn't think you were a bad person for not cutting something that was made a long time ago - I'd more likely think that it probably really just didn't occur to you, perhaps in the same way it would never occur to me not to mention that Macbeth or Hamlet are Shakespearean Tragedies. Because along with it being nice to be nice, it's nice to think the best of people.

My line is drawn where something finished tonight, or last week, or even in the last month. It's fresh in your mind, therefore it must occur to you that it's a spoiler, therefore you are a prick not to cut it.

This comment was just a pointless reiteration, wasn't it? Oh well.

To add something new, I think it's very interesting that the tradition used to be, before going to see a play, opera or musical, and particularly if it was a famous one, the convention was to familiarise yourself with the plot before you went so that you were able to appreciate the artistry of the performance without having to struggle to follow the plot. I still expect to see (and will read if I don't know) a plot synopsis in programmes at the theatre for opera or musicals - and for historical plays/films I certainly read up on the history before I go to see them.

I'm sure people have already said before (as it always comes up) that your enjoyment of a really good film/whatever shouldn't be decreased materially by knowing the end. I don't know that that's true. Perhaps what we should say is that modern entertainment now depends on its 'twist' so heavily that it has become a part of the media in a way that, in the past, it never was. I don't know whether that's a shame or not.

a bit over-sensitive

This is, by the way, one of the things that's getting to me a bit. I don't believe people can be "too sensitive". People may be more or less sensitive than each other, but I don't believe that any particular level of sensitivity is "right".

(Not having a go at you specifically, you're just the fourth person to say it today)

I think that's probably a separate matter. I also think people who, I dunno, cry at TV adverts are over-sensitive - and I'm one of them. Or people who cry when bugs are killed, but see my post about the bee the other day.

I liked that post - I tend to do much the same thing, I hate killing things if I can avoid it. I even rescue spiders and they terrify me!

And I don't think that's over-sensitive. "Over" implies some level that's right, and I can't see how you'd set a baseline.

I was trying to avoid saying "egocentric". It's not all about you.

My emotions aren't about me?

What?

Pulling a quote from a while back:

However, your views on what constitutes a spoiler are such that I think you're being overly sensitive.

Your emotional reaction to being told the ending of a film is most definitely about you.

Your expectation that people should necessarily change their behaviour to avoid upsetting you, regardless of other concerns, would seem to be the epitome of egocentricity.

Your expectation that people should necessarily change their behaviour to avoid upsetting you, regardless of other concerns, would seem to be the epitome of egocentricity.

But I don't think that. I don't remember saying that either. I've said repeatedly, in both posts, that that choice is down to the individual.

Yet you make a value judgement about others by describing them as unempathic when what they do doesn't fit with what you'd like them to do!

He's not describing people who don't do what he wants as unempathic. He's describing people who insist he doesn't or shouldn't feel the way he does as unempathic.

No, I didn't.

I described then as unempathic when their reaction to me saying "I don't enjoy X" was "You're doing it wrong, you emo wuss." - showing a lack of understanding that my emotions were different to theirs, and not because of some problem with me, but because people are different.

Responses of "You may not enjoy X, but I'm fine with it." didn't bother me at all.

At no point did I call people unempathic because they didn't do what I said. Particularly because I never told anyone what to do.

I'm wondering what I did to be quite so misunderstood by you. Can you point out which bits made you believe I was telling you what to do?

Can't speak for

nmg, but the comment in your original post "To me, spoilers are all about politeness" certainly made me think your aim was to ask people to behave in a particular way: the implication was that posting spoilers is impolite, and usually statements like "X is impolite" do carry an implicit "so please don't do X, on the basis of our presumably-shared assumption that being polite is generally a good thing".

In the next paragraph, "And I'd really appreciate you not telling me the details before I do!" also sounded very like a request, even an emphatic one.

I was telling people what I would appreciate. This is a statement about my projected emotional state, based on their actions.

And yes, I believe that if X makes someone unhappy, then it is polite to not do X. I do not believe that politeness is always the correct thing to do - I'm fine with people choosing to be impolite.

I think that if you're sufficiently sensitive that you are frequently upset by people doing things that you can't reasonably expect them not to do then you're over-sensitive. That's not a criticism, it's just that getting upset frequently is bad.

I also think that many people who get upset by things that they can't reasonably expect people not to do nonetheless expect people not to do them, or encourage them to feel guilty if they do*, and that is what people are usually referring to when they call someone over-sensitive as a criticism.

As a more general response to your post, it is sometimes possible to change how much something upsets you, and pointing this out is not the same as saying that it doesn't upset you now.

*I'm not saying that you're doing that, talking in generalities here.

I think that if you're sufficiently sensitive that you are frequently upset by people doing things that you can't reasonably expect them not to do then you're over-sensitive.

For some definition of "reasonable".

I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

it is sometimes possible to change how much something upsets you

In which case advice on how to do this would seem to be the answer.

For some definition of "reasonable".
Right, and obviously that's dependent on the people involved and the context and so on, but it's not entirely subjective in the way that an emotional response is.

In which case advice on how to do this would seem to be the answer.
Agreed. I mean, people were doing that, but it would be better if they did it from a "you might find it less of a problem if you looked at it this way" than a "your way of doing it is mechanistic and inferior, mine is way better".

But it is highly contextual. And being "over sensitive" may merely mean that you should stop hanging around with people who hurt you all the time and spend more time with people who don't.

And yes :->

"I don't believe people can be "too sensitive"."

People can be too anything. If people can be so sensitive so that it impairs their day to day living I would say that is too much. Off course you'd probably need a hell of a long tail to find such a person put there you go...

To risk, unintended but I feel it could be interpreted as such so please excuse me if I've gone and been a product of white male middle class priviledge again, misogyny: Clearly to an extent we do belive some people can be "too sensitive" - I'd say that narratives of HRT for menopausal women include bits about emotional stability. Obviously the argument here is that increased sensitivity (at the extreme) leads to emotional instability.

If people can be so sensitive so that it impairs their day to day living I would say that is too much.

Depends on how much it impairs it. I mean, my day would be better if I wasn't sensitive to idiots saying stupid things, but it's not such a massive impairment that I fancy seeking help with it :->

Similarly, emotional stability is a personal matter too. Everyone is a bit unstable, or we wouldnt have emotion reactions at all. What level of instability we're happy with is for us to decide.

I think that choices about sensitivity levels are personal - there's no _global_ bar for sensitivity, there's what individuals are comfortable with.

You can pretty much take that when I say "impairs day to day living" (or functioning) I mean in a pretty serious regard. As in this person is unable to do things that the majority of society take for granted most days.

Good point re: opera, etc. About a decade ago, I saw the NBT's production of The Brontes (biographical ballet about the Bronte sisters and brother), and I rather wished that I'd had i) a potted biography and ii) potted plot synopses of their works before I saw it (I hadn't read any of their books) because I found it very hard to follow the narrative.

So yes, I agree that there are narrative forms where intentional plot spoilers are not only considered to be the norm, but also advantageous.

And yes, my line is drawn in pretty much the same place as yours. For much older stuff, I take more of a hard line (which may or may not make me a bad man).

"I would still cut (most) stuff on my LJ because I'm happy to go to a small amount of trouble for the convenience of my friends."

+1

This is pretty much what I was going to say, only phrased rather more diplomatically.

I totally agree with this, (especially the challenging your self image part), but think that it does show a lack of empathy if the person is unwilling to see or acknowledge that they did cause harm to another, (albeit minor harm etc).

They have the choice of examining their self image or not... and choose to totally dismiss the feelings of the other person as stupid. They may be able to empathise, but they deliberately choose not to, showing at the very least a lack of empathy applied in this situation.

Well I would contend the situation only ever arises because the person can empathise. That's were the internal conflict, that is resolved by deciding the other persons feelings are trivial (in the case of spoilers I'll add that although it pisses me off when such things are revealed it is more then reasonable to assume such things to be trivial...).

The conflict of self image doesn't occur if there isn't any empathy. The event is just shrugged off and forgotten about by the transgressor.

As an example I suspect folks with Autism, lacking as they do a theory of mind - kinda essential for empathy, upon revealing a spoiler will either appear not to care when the spoilee complains or apologise in a rote fashion (IE. In a kind of learned response type way). I'd suspect they wouldn't feel the need to diminish the spoilees views precisely because they don't feel the empathy that causes the conflict... yadda yadda etc etc

Hmm, I can see what you mean definitely. I'm just arguing about trivialities really - it's just that the person doesn't apply their empathy to the situation you see, which to me is a lack. They do have it *somewhere* but they choose not to use it, and instead belittle the other person to avoid looking at their self image even slightly.

As an example I suspect folks with Autism, lacking as they do a theory of mind - kinda essential for empathy, upon revealing a spoiler will either appear not to care when the spoilee complains or apologise in a rote fashion (IE. In a kind of learned response type way). I'd suspect they wouldn't feel the need to diminish the spoilees views precisely because they don't feel the empathy that causes the conflict... yadda yadda etc etc

Except that the assumption that autistics lack theory of mind and thus empathy is really, really not true and is harmful to autistics. Most of us feel things more than might be considered normal, not less, but we don't show it in the expected ways and/or at the expected things, so we're assumed to lack empathy. In my experience and that of most of my autistic friends, it's neurotypicals who are more likely to lack empathy, they're just really good at saying/doing the stuff that makes it look like they care.

As far as I am aware the research supports my original statement. I'd be willing to be proved wrong however.

The research was done by neurotypicals who were arrogant enough not to think they needed to ask actual autistics,and as long as attitudes like "I'm not going to listen to what actual autistics say, the research supports it!" continue to inform people's decisions regarding how they think about and behave towards autistics, we're not going to get anywhere and more of us are going to be mistreated. You're unlikely to be proved wrong by anything official because oh look, the people who do the studies and write the official guides are NT and often just work from what other NTs have said in the past. Or they talk to NT parents of autistic kids. When autistics do try and speak up, we're silenced or ignored.

So is your position that the research is invalid because of the people who conducted it?

Is that not just an appeal to special authority?

It's a poor argument.

My position is that the research is invalid because autistics themselves, about whom it's all been written without their input, say it's not true. It's not an appeal to special authority, it's making the point that if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong.

if you're going to write/read something about a group of people and then ignore them when they say what you've written/read is inaccurate, you're going to be getting a lot of stuff wrong.

Which is not always true. I many cases I'd see it's probably rarely true.
It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum. As it claims that the research is invalid because the privilidged information that only one with Autism has is being ignored by "NT's".

Furthermore without alternative explanations for the results of "NT" research it's not a particularly satisfying line of argument - all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.

There are many ways this debate could continue in a fruitful and interesting fashion:-

There is a strong case to be made that the interpretation may be wrong, but to show that you'd have to reinterpret the research results and show why they were wrong.

(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)

Alternatively you could pick apart the operationalisation of terms or methods used. The operationalisation of terms would be particularly fertile ground I imagine because you could probably construct quite a convincing and intelligent argument against how "theory of mind" is defined. The construct likely has a fair few chinks in the armour that potentially could be exposed.

It is also a special appeal to the authority of people on the ASD spectrum.

Why on earth should we not be given authority when it comes to speaking about and describing how our own minds work?

all it does is ask me to ignore the scientific consensus on the basis of a politically motivated position.

Firstly, the scientific consensus is given a lot more credit than it deserves in many areas, and patients (not that I consider autism an illness, but I am for the moment not only talking about autism) of all types are suffering because they're not being listened to.

Secondly, I'm not asking you to ignore it; I'm asking you to accept that it is not necessarily true, and that a lot of autistics reject many of the medically-approved stereotypes which abound. Thirdly, I know the personal is political and all that, but saying that it's a politically-motivated position and seemingly dismissing it on those grounds is ignoring the fact that very real damage is being done to people's lives because those in authority won't listen to us about how things really are.

I'm not a scientist by any means, so reinterpreting the research results is beyond me, and in any case, that'd be a pretty major project; a lot of the time, that's part of what people do when minority groups speak up and say "the accepted wisdom about us is inaccurate" - the privileged groups say "well, do a shedload of work that you're not in any position to do, and prove it is" which they know is an unrealistic request, so they get to carry on ignoring the truth.

(Just saying they are because someone or a group of people say it is doesn't make it so.)

But it's not just any old random group of people. It's the people about whom the inaccurate stuff has been written. Our realities are being denied every day. And yet non-autistics get to say how things are all the time, and that seemingly makes it so, because they're the ones in the privileged majority.

Look, I have fibromyalgia, a hell of a long-term migraine and a really rubbish rural internet connection, but I'd be happy to try and find links to stuff that might better illustrate what I'm trying to say. It might take a week or so because of the previously-mentioned difficulties but I'm clearly not doing a very good job of making my point and I'd like to get it across more effectively.

I'd be happy to read them, but there's no rush I have comment notifications on and the like.

Yeah - saw a fair amount of this in discssions of racism online.
Person A: That thing you said reinforces racial stereotypes. Please don't do that.
Person B: I'M NOT RACIST! I CAN WRITE WHATEVER I LIKE! HOW DARE YOU???

It is in part, I think, because when person A says I don't like/ didn't enjoy/ found gaping plot holes in X, to person B it feels like a critism. An implied "you are wrong to like X, it shows your tastes are poor/ unsophisticated". Person B feels the need to defend X to defend the value of their opinion as a whole.

I am really good at getting caught up in films, I feel really sorry for people who can't let go of continuity errors, I think I get more enjoyment. Unless the getting to talk about the thing you have spotted, therefore showing your superior watching skillz, provides pleasure.

I vary a lot with continuity errors. Something like Star Trek, I don't care. It had massive plot holes, and was still a great fun romp. Something where the plot rests on the continuity (like a murder mystery) I'm much more sensitive to - because if you're following along and trying to work it out with them, then discovering that the puzzle is broken is annoying.

THIS! EXACTLY THIS! Thanks Andy. I had a bad experience recently with saying I didn't really enjoy a film as much as I'd thought I was going to (not cos of spoilers, I thought it was slightly disappointing and had certain flaws). Why is it not ok to say that?
I also think people could be a little clearer on the distinction between saying 'I don't enjoy x' and 'x is BAD'. Definitely not the same!

Where I tend to see this is conversations online that go something like:

Person A: I feel upset by X
Person B: Don't get it / get over it / that's odd
Person A: Yeah, but I feel upset by X - you need to get that
Person B: Okay, you're upset, but sorry still don't get it
Person A: Yeah, but I feel upset by X - you need to get that
Person B: Okay, you're upset, but sorry still don't get it

& numerous variations on the theme until someone gets bored or a flame war breaks out.

What probably needs to happen in this scenario is that the two individuals stop talking about it. Person B is never going to understand person A's perspective and person A is not going to change that.

Fundamentally though, I don't subscribe to 'everyone's feelings are absolutely valid & they can express them without challenge all the time'. I think it's true most of the time, but I can think of plenty of examples where people get upset / angry where they have absolutely no right to do so or where their views are actively unpleasant. It's fair to say that none of these are in the world of film or literary criticism though ;)

If someone told you they only ate crisp sandwiches, isn't it possible you would express disbelief? And if they replied "But I like them!" would that really make a difference?

I might express surprise, but I have a friend who mostly exists on macaroni cheese and chips with ketchup, so I wouldn't express disbelief. It's a funny world we live in.

Having lived with the guy, I still find it hard to believe. ;-)

Bear in mind the very nature of how things are discussed on the internet. That may skew the answers you're getting.

Absolutely. The internet makes it much easier to be misunderstood, and much harder to tell when people are being emotional about stuff.

I think there is an implicit value judgement on the different ways of watching. Compare my response if someone says "I didn't like $longbook. It was too full of words," or "I loved Dan Brown, his puzzles are so clever". I shouldn't encroach their freedom to enjoy something their way. But I definitely want to.

And that sort of difference of opinion occurs in other cases when it's less clear-cut, and people might legitimately have different experiences, yet feel compelled to justify their own.

Empathic Failure

no subject

probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my say

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

no subject

no subject

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject